1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows, except for adding the following judgments as to the matters emphasized by the original and the defendant in the trial, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

(attached Form No. 2). 2. Additional matters to be determined

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant’s vehicle was negligent in finding the Plaintiff’s vehicle that entered the instant intersection before a red signal is replaced by yellow signal, and without accelerating or avoiding it. At the time, the Defendant’s vehicle’s driver was at the time of the occurrence of the instant accident as well as the negligence of driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol content of 0.138%. Thus, the Defendant’s vehicle’s negligence is at least 30%. 2) The Defendant’s accident occurred by the total negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was left left in violation of the instant signal.

At the time, the driver of the Defendant vehicle at the time, in compliance with the speed limit according to the straight line in the direction of the driving, has no negligence, and there is no causal relationship with the instant accident even if he was found to have been guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied

B. Unless there are special circumstances, the driver of a vehicle driving along an intersection where traffic is controlled by signal signals, etc. according to the relevant legal principles and signals is sufficient to observe traffic regulations and to believe that other vehicles are believed to take appropriate measures to avoid collisions, barring special circumstances, and there is no duty of care to take special measures to prevent accidents in advance due to the expectation that other vehicles violate the traffic regulations and are expected to stop their course, and that the vehicle is a driver of a vehicle driving in compliance with the signals.